Erection of a first-floor side extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Residential Amenity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 3 June 2026
by B J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 08 June 2026
Appeal Ref: 6009146
11 Oakwood Drive, Edgware, HA8 9LG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Neil Mavadia against the decision of Barnet London Borough Council.
• The application Ref is 26/0526/HSE.
• The development proposed is the erection of a first-floor side extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first-
floor side extension at 11 Oakwood Drive, Edgware, HA8 9LG, in accordance with
the terms of the application, Ref 26/0526/HSE, and subject to the following
conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development shall be carried out only in compliance with following
approved drawings:
11OD(02) Rev A, 11OD(01) Rev A, 11OD(06) Rev B,
11OD(05) Rev B, 11OD(07) Rev A
3) The materials used in the external finishes to the side extension shall match
those of the main building.
Main Issue
2. The main issue is the effect the proposed first-floor side extension would have on
the character and appearance of 11 Oakwood Drive itself and on the wider local
street scene.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
3. This limited first-floor side extension would logically infill a previous first-floor
extension and render the smallest bedroom of the host dwelling more useable.
4. The totality of the side addition would remain subordinate to the main construction.
It would still be no more than 50% wider than the original building and would retain
the front set-back and hipped roof form of the present extension and be finished in
matching materials. The extension now proposed would thus be in keeping the
character and appearance of No 11 Oakwood Drive itself.
Appeal Decision 6009146
2
5. The surrounding streets are characterised by a wide variety of built form and house
extensions, including at the attached No 13. In its street context, I do not consider
that the first-floor extension now proposed would upset the symmetry of the pair
unacceptably.
6. It is true that the front corner of the appeal dwelling at No 11 Oakwood Drive is
already hard against the flank boundary of the appeal property with Meadow
Gardens at this prominent corner location and thus forward of the front building line
of houses fronting Meadow Gardens.
7. However, the flank boundary of the appeal site is already established by its long,
tall boundary wall of No 11, whilst the appeal dwelling relates primarily to Oakwood
Drive, both visually and spatially. There is a substantial distance between No 11
and No 9 Oakwood Drive on the opposite side of the junction, maintaining an
impression of openness.
8. In this context, I consider that the modest additional bulk of the first-floor side
extension now proposed would have no appreciable effect on the wider local street
scene.
Other Matters
9. New windows in the extension would be obscure-glazed and there is no evidence
of potential harm to residential amenity or any other material consideration.
Conclusion
10. I therefore conclude that the proposed first-floor side extension would be compliant
with the relevant Polices CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan and D3 of
the London Plan, as well as the Barnet Council supplementary guidance regarding
the design of house extensions.
11. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the permission sought granted.
B J Sims
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.